When the way you maintain power is by disenfranchising people of color, and your self-interest is in disenfranchising people of color, that's white supremacy. It's literally the definition of white supremacy.
"White supremacy" has recently come to be used by some to refer to racism in a fairly generic sense, but historically what it referred to, and the way many of us still use it, is a belief in the project of maintaining white POLITICAL supremacy.
There's obviously going to be a lot of overlap between the two, and there's no doubt in my mind that many of Trump's top advisers are, along with Trump himself, racist ideologues.
But you don't need to be a racist ideologue to be a white supremacist. You just need a particular self-interest, and a willingness to follow it where it leads you.
Republicans in Florida aren't fighting to overturn the expressed will of the people of their state on felon disenfranchisement because they care specifically about people with criminal records voting. They're doing it because of the demographics of mass incarceration.
When Republicans in Georgia threw tens of thousands of black voters off the rolls, they weren't doing it because of free-floating racial animus, they were doing it because more black people voting means a steeper hill for them at the polls.
When Republicans in Wisconsin gerrymandered their state to within an inch of its life, shunting voters of color into 90+% Dem districts while spreading their base around as many leaning-GOP districts as they could, they were just indulging their own desire for maintaining power.
We don't need to look into Republicans' hearts to figure out whether they're white supremacists. We just need to look at how they run elections.
Again, there's no shortage of evidence of racism at the highest ranks of the Republican Party, and Trump himself is one of the figures for whom the evidence is most overwhelming.
But the evidence that the modern-day Republican Party is specifically a white supremacist party is empirical and quantitative and utterly straightforward.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(I tweeted about it last night, but as I sometimes do, I frontloaded conclusions rather than explanation, so I'm rebooting.)
There are a lot of people around—including a lot of people in my comments—who start from the premise that tearing down these posters is hostile to free expression, and so what happened to this guy was a free-speech victory. Let's unpack that.
I ran the first paragraph of Orwell's 1984 through ChatGPT, asking it to fix any "spelling, grammatical, or usage errors."
I think my copyediting gig is safe. Check it out:
Orwell: "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions..."
ChatGPT: "It was a bright, cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, with his chin nuzzled into his chest in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped rapidly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions..."
It's only—the quoted text—not dangerous because it's so ignorant. If your goal is to "evaluate grammar" in order to determine whether a manuscript is publishably competently written, all you need to do is have a copy editor spend three minutes reading a random page. (1/?)
It's not an onerous task. But it's not also a useful task. Because lots of books that get published are written by authors who have a shaky grasp of grammar. Lots of GOOD books are written by such authors. Such manuscripts are the baby, not the bathwater.
Me, to my partner, also a copy editor, or vice versa: "How's the book you're working on going?"
Them, to me, or v-v: "It's fine. The author doesn't know how commas work, but it's fine."
"Meryl Streep is grievously miscast in Postcards from the Edge."
My view: Streep was perfect in the breakup scene with Dennis Quaid and a few others, but she needed to (1) be meaner to, and more like, her mom and (2) give the impression that she'd be a fun person to get high with.
I can buy Streep being Maclaine's daughter in Postcards, and I can buy her living the life she's living in the movie, but to believe the former I have to disbelieve the latter, and vice versa.
It would have been SO EASY to leverage the cachet of the celeb blue-checks in monetizing the new buy-in system. It really is astonishingly perverse how far he’s gone to do the opposite.
Seems like this may be about to reach exit velocity, so to be clear: I'm applauding Megan Hunt here. She is upholding and insisting upon decency by refusing to reciprocate empty civility from her colleagues.
Don't hurt my family and send me a Christmas card. Don't reveal yourself to be a bigot and ask me how my weekend went. Don't vote for evil and assume my ongoing goodwill. Don't be indecent and expect civility in return.